Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBeets, Michael W.
dc.contributor.authorvon Klinggraeff, Lauren
dc.contributor.authorBurkart, Sarah
dc.contributor.authorJones, Alexis
dc.contributor.authorIoannidis, John P. A.
dc.contributor.authorWeaver, R. Glenn
dc.contributor.authorOkely, Anthony D.
dc.contributor.authorLubans, David
dc.contributor.authorvan Sluijs, Esther
dc.contributor.authorJago, Russell
dc.contributor.authorTurner‐McGrievy, Gabrielle
dc.contributor.authorThrasher, James
dc.contributor.authorLi, Xiaoming
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-22T14:38:06Z
dc.date.available2021-11-22T14:38:06Z
dc.date.issued2021-11-14
dc.date.submitted2021-06-22
dc.identifier.issn1467-7881
dc.identifier.issn1467-789X
dc.identifier.otherobr13369
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/330818
dc.descriptionFunder: Sue and Bob O'Donnell
dc.description.abstractSummary: Biases introduced in early‐stage studies can lead to inflated early discoveries. The risk of generalizability biases (RGBs) identifies key features of feasibility studies that, when present, lead to reduced impact in a larger trial. This meta‐study examined the influence of RGBs in adult obesity interventions. Behavioral interventions with a published feasibility study and a larger scale trial of the same intervention (e.g., pairs) were identified. Each pair was coded for the presence of RGBs. Quantitative outcomes were extracted. Multilevel meta‐regression models were used to examine the impact of RGBs on the difference in the effect size (ES, standardized mean difference) from pilot to larger scale trial. A total of 114 pairs, representing 230 studies, were identified. Overall, 75% of the pairs had at least one RGB present. The four most prevalent RGBs were duration (33%), delivery agent (30%), implementation support (23%), and target audience (22%) bias. The largest reductions in the ES were observed in pairs where an RGB was present in the pilot and removed in the larger scale trial (average reduction ES −0.41, range −1.06 to 0.01), compared with pairs without an RGB (average reduction ES −0.15, range −0.18 to −0.14). Eliminating RGBs during early‐stage testing may result in improved evidence.
dc.languageen
dc.subjectREVIEW
dc.subjectREVIEWS
dc.subjectintervention
dc.subjectpilot
dc.subjectscaling
dc.subjecttranslation
dc.titleImpact of risk of generalizability biases in adult obesity interventions: A meta‐epidemiological review and meta‐analysis
dc.typeArticle
dc.date.updated2021-11-22T14:38:04Z
prism.publicationNameObesity Reviews
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.78261
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-08-18
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1111/obr.13369
rioxxterms.versionAO
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.contributor.orcidvon Klinggraeff, Lauren [0000-0002-4417-0701]
dc.contributor.orcidLubans, David [0000-0002-0204-8257]
pubs.funder-project-idNational Health and Medical Research Council (APP1154507, APP1176858)
pubs.funder-project-idNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (F31HL158016, F32HL154530, R01HL149141)
pubs.funder-project-idNational Institute of General Medical Sciences (P20GM130420)


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record